nx7

[blackwing]

Good morning,

we are considering the possibility of switching from version 6 to 7, and I would like to know a little the impressions of who has already made the jump and uses it all day.
especially if there is someone who uses it for the table masses of large assemblies with parts not shaped to "rule of art".

Thank you.

 

[Utente NX]

Good morning,

we are considering the possibility of switching from version 6 to 7, and I would like to know a little the impressions of who has already made the jump and uses it all day.
especially if there is someone who uses it for the table masses of large assemblies with parts not shaped to "rule of art".

Thank you.

if you want advice from a user nx7... go to 7.5.
There are two major improvements:
1) Loading and using lightweght components
in practice nx loads the components with reference set 'lightweight' which is considerably faster.
You can mate them while not.
if you have to do certain processing or modifications, nx7.5 changes reference set to 'model' automatically
2) placed on the table with many automatic quotation tools and not

the improvements are many, but only for these two in my opinion it is worth it.

 

[blackwing]

thanks for the news,

but, since in the past I had more than quanche unpleasant " meeting" with the nx basins I was interested in more sepere as is reliability.

greetings

 

[cacciatorino]

1) Loading and using lightweght components
in practice nx loads the components with reference set 'lightweight' which is considerably faster.

Sorry a curiosity. Does that mean that nx until 7 does not know the notion of "light weight"? or only that by default loads the resolved components and instead light weight option is not the default?

 

[beppino]

Sorry a curiosity. Does that mean that nx until 7 does not know the notion of "light weight"? or only that by default loads the resolved components and instead light weight option is not the default?

la seconda.

 

[The_Matrix]

I fully agree with what is reported by "user nx".
if you are fond of the "automatic" harvests you can also:
- turning sketches into pmi
- Automatically inherit pMS at the table
- edit the quotas from the table and see modified the model (that my ptc past would love me, but rationally it is an unspeakable cagat.a)
... but so much...

ps: if the 3d models of which you make the table make the performances pette the same will make to comb. . .
not a few times I had experiences, in companies recently purchased from vw, of models imported from v4 that to put them on the table they wanted the hammers.... once settled the 2d went 10 times + fast (the 10 times is not so much to say... )

 

[Utente NX]

Sorry a curiosity. Does that mean that nx until 7 does not know the notion of "light weight"? or only that by default loads the resolved components and instead light weight option is not the default?

a clarification... until 7.5.
up to nx7.5... light weight. I didn't need a snitch.
How did you not need a snitch?

If I have to load a nice light weight axle and do nothing and say nothing. ..because the measurements are also related to the model made, then so much it is worth loading it to only structure and loading what I need.

from version nx7.5....that is, in 2010 after other cads did it for years and I don't say 2 or 3... they understood something.

 

[Omen]

provided that I can't say I have an exaggerated experience in the field of large assembly ... from test I had done time ago is from version nx5 (i.e. since the reference set lightweght exploits the jt technology) that on lightweght it is possible to make precise measurements, dynamic sections and use x positionings

 

[Utente NX]

provided that I can't say I have an exaggerated experience in the field of large assembly ... from test I had done time ago is from version nx5 (i.e. since the reference set lightweght exploits the jt technology) that on lightweght it is possible to make precise measurements, dynamic sections and use x positionings

What do you mean by precise measures... if the surfaces are undone... I have 0.2 rope set the lightweight?
if you talk about interests between holes.. . then also with rope 5 mm is precise.

the dynamic sections, you... do also with the lightweight....but I wouldn't consider this a point in favor to use them.

What do you mean by positioning?
assembly constraints?
if you are absolutely not true and you are wrong....

the lightweight is useful from 7.5, before it does not need anything.
rather I use the group component, which needs license or open by proxymity with the 'structure only' option.

 

[The_Matrix]

What do you mean by precise measures... if the surfaces are undone... I have 0.2 rope set the lightweight?
if you talk about interests between holes.. . then also with rope 5 mm is precise.

the dynamic sections, you... do also with the lightweight....but I wouldn't consider this a point in favor to use them.

What do you mean by positioning?
assembly constraints?
if you are absolutely not true and you are wrong....

the lightweight is useful from 7.5, before it does not need anything.
rather I use the group component, which needs license or open by proxymity with the 'structure only' option.

Why be so tranchant? I can understand if you say nx3 when lightweights were not jt, but from nx5 forward you could start doing it seriously.

- the exact measurements (distances, interaxes, diameters etc) were made from nx5.
- the positionings could be done on the lightweight already from nx5, but were not preserved as a contraint assembly.
The lods were already with nx5.
- streaming was already in nx5
- the dynamic associative measures on the lightweight (the ones stored in the ant) were already in nx5
- motion envelope (the one that leaves the track in mounts/dismount) on the lightweight was already in nx5
- the automatic removal on the lightweight (the one with the kineo engine) was already in nx5
- the multicad on the "external" jt was already in nx5

... then clearly, in nx7.5, the "smart lightweight" opzones make the work + seamless... and the multicad definitely goes even better.

then, the others:
- pro/e still doesn't use the lightweight (at least wf4, I don't know wf5), although its performance is still good
- Catia on cgr makes really petting as functionality: If you don't go to solids, do not miss what he did nx2
- inventor doesn't miss the concept

 

[Utente NX]

Why be so tranchant? I can understand if you say nx3 when lightweights were not jt, but from nx5 forward you could start doing it seriously.

- the exact measurements (distances, interaxes, diameters etc) were made from nx5.
- the positionings could be done on the lightweight already from nx5, but were not preserved as a contraint assembly.
The lods were already with nx5.
- streaming was already in nx5
- the dynamic associative measures on the lightweight (the ones stored in the ant) were already in nx5
- motion envelope (the one that leaves the track in mounts/dismount) on the lightweight was already in nx5
- the automatic removal on the lightweight (the one with the kineo engine) was already in nx5
- the multicad on the "external" jt was already in nx5

... then clearly, in nx7.5, the "smart lightweight" opzones make the work + seamless... and the multicad definitely goes even better.

then, the others:
- pro/e still doesn't use the lightweight (at least wf4, I don't know wf5), although its performance is still good
- Catia on cgr makes really petting as functionality: If you don't go to solids, do not miss what he did nx2
- inventor doesn't miss the concept

I'm telling you shit because it's not fair to mess around incorrectness.
cgr are no other faceted stl style objects.
are almost never used by users catià except for particular cases.
the light weight, even if it has other name, exists in catià as in nx for a long time and automatism that does nx7.5 did it catià for years.
I link you something so you do a little culture, because spreading something you don't know is very wrong and incorrect... .http://www.cad3d.it/forum1/showthread.php?t=664back to your answer....on the list of operations that you can perform from nx5 to nx7 with reference set 'lightweight'.. .they are only marginal utility.

What does a designer do in the environment together?
mate components and change parts in context or not in axieme context.
to this scenario... what percentage do you give?
90% of the designer's time?
in this scenario the 'lightweight', up to version 7.5, did not allow you to couple the components between them.
I am happy with this improvement, but it seems absurd that they have implemented it in May 2010.

 

[The_Matrix]

I'm telling you shit because it's not fair to mess around incorrectness.
cgr are no other faceted stl style objects.
are almost never used by users catià except for particular cases.
the light weight, even if it has other name, exists in catià as in nx for a long time and automatism that does nx7.5 did it catià for years.
I link you something so you do a little culture, because spreading something you don't know is very wrong and incorrect... .http://www.cad3d.it/forum1/showthread.php?t=664back to your answer....on the list of operations that you can perform from nx5 to nx7 with reference set 'lightweight'.. .they are only marginal utility.

What does a designer do in the environment together?
mate components and change parts in context or not in axieme context.
to this scenario... what percentage do you give?
90% of the designer's time?
in this scenario the 'lightweight', up to version 7.5, did not allow you to couple the components between them.
I am happy with this improvement, but it seems absurd that they have implemented it in May 2010.

I have collaborated to write dmu methodologies of a well-known aircraft manufacturer, so I know quite well how catia works.
thank you for the link, but I document myself otherwise.

Think about it as you want. I worked very well from nx5 and I worked pretty well even before.
If you had any difficulties or the features that were there, you probably do a type of product and you have a different workflow from me. (and an experience, maybe).